Indo-UK: News & Discussion

[surinder]

Dear B:

The British mentality happens to be my favorite topic too, except I have much less scholarly insight into it. I would like to explore this more, if possible. Maybe we can discuss in this thread, maybe start another thread.

I will respond to your post later. One quick note: I don't really admire the British, at least not consciously. I am trying to understand the British, their actions and tactics, and ultimately their psychology. But perhaps it is chasing a chimera, their psychology may not be any different than that of the D-company. What an apt comparison. (What you say about mafia / criminal mentality exploiting civilizational problems makes total sense. But detailed response later.)

SVenkat & Sanku, you made some good points, I will respond later. Svenkat, you mention Caste once, reams of pages fill up the thread.

[brihaspati]

svenkat wrote
The British were corrupted by the wealth of India.That is why they wanted to rule India for ever.

Can we have consistent numerous examples from Brits before they colonized India as to how uncorrupt they were? Please mention an example of corruption, and which was absent in the Brits before their "glorious" "enlightening" role in "saving" Indians.

Secondly,if we want to be blind to our shortcomings,then there is no point at all.

The British had a 'superior' morality. Any honest observer,one does not have to be a jholawala or christian missionary or pakjabi mussalman to see the flaws in our polity and even indvidual character.

This is again most interesting. Please mention specific cases of "superior morality" in the British in comaprable contexts in Britain and India.

BRF is in a way fanatasy land.I am talking about myself and my compulsive urge to come to what is called by gurus here as Hot Air Forum.(Strategic Issues etc).
This is Indian reality -the gap between elite realists and the 'hoi polloi'.

I can see a lot of similarity here between British elites and Indian elites. Both appear to shout about morality and stuff, or "hot air" according to some, in complete disregard of the reality of the "hoi polloi". It was a pure, moralist Britsih elite that oversaw dubious collection of young women on trumped up or frivolous charges [some small examples like a young girl of 12 or so having "criminally" assaulted another girl, stolen her penny and bought bread with it] and sentenced to death etc. The criteria was to get women young enough to "breed" and give them sufficiently hard sentences that would make any other option if offered immensely attractive. The trick was to then offer these girls [after careful assessment of breeding potential] the chance of deportation and compulsory confinementa nd exile in the new penal colonies - especially Australia. The target was to get breeding women to control the sexuality of male convicts deported earlier to Oz. The first such batch had a fun time serving also as prostitutes on a virtual "brothel ship" on passage. Similar "moral" undertakings took place on Andaman penal settlement.

I will make a sensitive point-The caste leaders-of the petty type are not able to think beyond narrow loyalties.Britain doesn't have this problem.In India,'every one' is trying to screw every one else. Britain had a 'genuine' 'varna system',based on 'merit' in place.

Oh really!! Forget the various uprisings and revolts by "lower" and "middle" elements agaisnt this wonderful "meritocracy" in the middle ages in Britain. What about the various naval mutinies and "gentlemen pirates" that happened in the Royal navy an the start of the exploration phase? Modern research firmly places the root cause at the "glass ceiling" that prevented proper recognition and reward of talent.

As Shivji remarked,we DON'T think as Indians wanting to screw others.British thought that way and the US/Chinese think that way today.
In a long range Karmic view point,all the subtle-psy-ops,nuances,pangas can only go some distance.All branding,imaging without substance can lead to pure investment banks frauds type economy.

I am getting confused here! Not wanting to screw "others" is a sign of lack of "morality" - while the British or the USA/Chinese are moral because they are constantly thinking of screwing others? Karmic viewpoint - thought was a specifically Indian one! But then what were the highly moral "substance" economies of the Anglo-Saxon doing to lead to Lehmann Brithers or Goldman-Sachs or the various Brits abanks and financial institutions that needed to pilfer public money to survive and carry on getting fat bonuses! Unfortunately Indian banks seem not have shared in this moralistic enterprise! Sad!

But let us not deny that there was a Britain of science,innovation,social reform and literature which was superior to the fossilised India 200 years back.

Why only suddenly 200 years back -thats 1800's! what about the previous 200 years? or before that? Why all the science and invention only after almost 200 years of Atlantic slave trade, and a similar 200 years of contact with India? India fossilized 200 years back? well maybe - by that time India has almost had more than 60 years of direct or indirect Brit rule in parts. Millions of pounds and technologies transferred. India was fossilized! Well the Kerala mathematicians were still working in the previous 200 years - and the Europeans appeared to have been quite keen on getting as much of Indian knowledge as possible.

The Indians at that time were suffering from yes, their own moral restrictions which had led them not to apply ruthlessness in erasing the Islamics for the previous 1000 years, or the British for that matter. As the Islamics progressed from the North - Indian society got busy surviving and we see a gradual drying up of innovations in the north and then the centre. Only the south sort of remained partly free from Islamic ravages to have helped the southern mathematicians.

At the time the British mafia hit, Indians were still involved in reasserting themselves but the struggle had not yet yielded power back to them. In the midst of all that the technologically superior British still stole the intact rockets of Tipu and rengineered them to use successfully in a naval battle in Europe.

If you admire them, admire them for their "morality" of opportunism, and deride the Indians for aginizing over the "immoral" questions of whether practises indulged in by the British so casually are "dharmic" or not!

Isnt it about time the Indian people put the British Devils out of their mind?Atleast the f******g leaders?No,they cannot.The truth is commies,kkangressmen,BJP,Akalis,DMK,Telugu Desam,Dalit parties each one of them have their pet axes to grind.

We should not forget this while whining against the British.

On the contrary, how can we forget the high-priests of moral superiority! After all, our leaders remind us what is best in the British!

[shiv]

When I see the British conquest and rule of India, it strikes me that while I can find endless cases of Indians stabbing their nation & fellow Indians in the back for small amount of money, power, or prestige, but I find the British uncorropt. While they used Indian money to bribe Indians, we could not use Indian wealth to bribe them. (That is what appears to me.)

How do they achieve that impossible target of maintaining internal morality, while discarding it completely in external dealings.

Lots of interesting points about the British in India. I would like to add my 2 paise. The British were led by a ruling elite and a wealthy mercantile class whose only object was to make more wealth in the name of "God and the King"

All of Europe had seen in the middle ages internecine wars where populations were made to change religion or allegiances with every change of king. And entire nations were allied by royal marriages or brought down by wars. In this monarchical system the people did not matter. It was the coming of a more egalitarian political system in Europe, the industrial revolution (leading to better weapons and ships) and the development of a mercantile middle class that was co-opted by the aristocracy that created European power. And Britain was no different.

When the British came to India - India was already a much used woman. The greatest glories were past and India was ruled by a series of monarchies. The kings might change but the mango Indian, an agrarian laborer in his rural society had very little say and was not necessarily affected greatly by a change of monarch. All that the Brits did was to either defeat and replace or co-opt (by gifts/bribery) the monarchs (elite) of India. Indian royalty were treated like royalty, it was only mango Indian who was screwed either way. And the industrial and scientific revolution ensured that the Brits has a lot to offer to the aristocracy of India even as they helped themselves.

The impression that the Brits were internally uniform and united is probably wrong. The Brits themselves came from a class ridden society. They created an entire new cadre of administrators for India giving the impression of great fairness and uniformity. It was only those who came to India who gave the appearance that all was equal. In any case they had to stick together in India and they did that by and large - although not completely. Back in Britain it was back to their class system. The class differentiation in Britain did not begin to disappear until after the first World war when the Brits lost so many men of all classes and the economy was so badly screwed that the upper classes and lower classes started mixing.

I don't know whether I have related why I left the UK on BRF. One June morning near Manchester, after I had been living in the UK for 7 years I saw a terribly bright light in the sky and was terrified. People rushed to calm me and explained to me that it was only the sun. I had forgotten about the sun - I had not seen it for years. Britain is a cold grey set of isles. Anyone would want to get out of there and the money and opportunities India offered to the average Brit made people write the examinations (that were created for service in India - an examination system that our children still suffer in india). A British commoner could go to India, make money and return a wealthy man and join the aristocracy with some luck. That is if he could get himself to go back to that awful weather.

[Yayavar]

I don't know whether I have related why I left the UK on BRF. One June morning near Manchester, after I had been living in the UK for 7 years I saw a terribly bright light in the sky and was terrified. People rushed to calm me and explained to me that it was only the sun. I had forgotten about the sun - I had not seen it for years. Britain is a cold grey set of isles. Anyone would want to get out of there ...

True! That was my thesis too when I had to suffer through the English weather (London in my case) traveling there from sunny Bengaluru. I was miserable. The only colour was on the holly bushes (berries), or men's ties (pastels). Otherwise it was grey skies, dark/grey suits, grim visages, grey buildings, no leaves on trees etc. In recent trips I've seen more colour (maybe the punks started colouring their hair too to get away from the greyness). There are a couple of months in Summer when there is Sun (for a long time) and weather is good.

[Prem]

Well, i had the few occasions of paying visit to few relatives and f(r)iends there . Have the bad habit of just showing up, depending on the mood. First visit was in eghties and i went to a shop and asked the good old folks there if they ever get Sun there . An old lady pointed out that the its available in the shop next door..... The onlee Sun they were familiar with was the darn Newspaper.

[arun]

In the Islamic Emirate of England, Held-Wales, Occupied-Scotland and English-Administered-Ireland things have come to such a pass that a convicted Pakistani paedophile cannot be deported as “his right to respect for family life would be breached if he was sent back” to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

Paedophile who abducted underage girls for sex can't be deported... because of HIS human rights

[Hari Seldon]

Any forumites on location in UKstan who could spill some gyan on the ground situ there re the looming polls? Is it really true that the sekular packee vote in UKstan goes entirely to labor? For once I'm voting with them in favor of labor then....

I'm whole-heartedly rooting for the glorious return of Sri Gordon Brown with a humping majority only. Even better if Sri Miliband makes chancellor of the exchequer/treasury or whatever fancy title they use for the fin mantri.

Don't get me wrong, its entirely on account of the demonstrated competence of these 2 at the helm of affairs and the essential flood of goodwill for the Ukstani nation that drives my support for labor in these polls. When your gubmint bonds (or gilts, as the UQ cutely calls them) lie on a 'bed of nitroglycerine', only the best of the best can be trusted with the heavy burden of running government.

TIA for any ground level info.

[Murugan]

I don't know whether I have related why I left the UK on BRF. One June morning near Manchester, after I had been living in the UK for 7 years I saw a terribly bright light in the sky and was terrified. People rushed to calm me and explained to me that it was only the sun. I had forgotten about the sun - I had not seen it for years. Britain is a cold grey set of isles. Anyone would want to get out of there ...

Hah!

that Terribly Brigght Light phenomenon is known as Good Morning in UKstan. That why they greet a Good Morning - such a rarity!

True! That was my thesis too when I had to suffer through the English weather (London in my case) traveling there from sunny Bengaluru. I was miserable. The only colour was on the holly bushes (berries), or men's ties (pastels). Otherwise it was grey skies, dark/grey suits, grim visages, grey buildings, no leaves on trees etc. In recent trips I've seen more colour (maybe the punks started colouring their hair too to get away from the greyness). There are a couple of months in Summer when there is Sun (for a long time) and weather is good.

Compounded with absence of grey matter otherwise how can people of great nation cannot understand and raise voice against criminal activity like invading Iraq on false premise of WMD, giving birth to orphans, widows and misery to their soldiers' families by misguiding whole nation and the world.

[Haresh]

Hari,

I live in London, I'll tell you what it is like with regards to the election.
Yes paks do vote labour, it is the party that has appeased them the most and is most likely to hand the country over to them on a platter. If you look back a few pages on this discussion you will find my copy&paste "Labour & British moslems, can we dream the same dream?" by mike o'brein Labour MP.

Indians have tended to swing to the Conservatives, we tend to earn more so have tax concerns.
Both parties want Indian money and paki votes.
Conservatives have syeda "kashmiri freedom fighters" Warsi and labour well what can I say they have D1ck head milliband.

With regards to the media, they will all harp on about britain giving £1 billion to India and funding the space program but will hide stories like this
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 058976.ece

and

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fbed5478-4b04 ... ab49a.html

in the financial pages, where the average thicko gora will not see them.
It keeps up resentmenttowards India and that makes the pakis feel good.

I have lived here all my life and never had any really bad experiences. However the Brits need to understand, India will once again be their salvation, they are a trading nation, they need to sell.
The masses need to be educated.

The potential PM leaders will be having another election debate on Thursday the subject is foreign affairs. I bet a samosa (or steak and kidney pie, if you like) that someone will ask "why are we giving money to India?"

[Karna_A]

Both parties want Indian money and paki votes.

The paki votes(and influence) are only due to Mangla dam. Churchill had the wrong conception that Pakis would be productive members of UK society so the Mangla dam refugees were given UK permits.
Mangla dam has other connections to India where the 26/11 piglets were trained there and was created due to IWT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangla_Dam
http://www.englandspastforeveryone.org. ... /ManglaDam?

Some of those affected by the dam were given work permits for Britain by the Government of Pakistan, and as a result, in many cities in the UK the majority of the 'Pakistani' community actually originated from the dadyal Mirpur area of Disputed region Jamuu Kashmir.

The pakis are twice as unproductive as Indians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Asian

The unemployment rate in Indians in UK is about 7%, higher than that of White British. On the other hand Pakistanis have higher unemployment rates of 13-14%

[Hari Seldon]

Thanks for the patient explanation, Haresh. I appreiate it.

[surinder]

I don't know whether I have related why I left the UK on BRF. One June morning near Manchester, after I had been living in the UK for 7 years I saw a terribly bright light in the sky and was terrified. People rushed to calm me and explained to me that it was only the sun. I had forgotten about the sun - ...

Shiv, what a clever and gripping way to state something. Hit me like a tonne of bricks.

[surinder]

To admire the British supposed "internal consistency" and "united front" in criminal enterprise is like admiring the "mafia" for its success. Come on, then, let us all join in admiring and cheering the D-company!

B,

Let me play the devil's advocate. I am not wedded to the idea, so if you demolish my arguments I would not be unhappy, I would be ecstatic.

The Britain of 1700 or 1800's was a Britiain that already had a functioning democracy for many years. Continous elections, a parliament, a system where people participate in the govt, and change it without the usual convulsions we see in most fo the world, including India. They have a taxation system, justice system, judiciary, national army, accountability, national debate, press, above all national cohesiveness.

If I may do a though experiment, let us imagine India taking over UK. Let us say we win East Anglia first, would the East Anglians enroll in Indian Army to defeat the Welsh or Scots or London? If an Indian General had ordered Welsh troops in IA to shoot at unarmed people, would they do it? Would the British join the IA to be the coercive arm of the IA to subjugate UK? Could IA get the local dukes, generals to sell out their nation to India? Again, it is a thought experiment, and your conclusions might vary.

Your thoughts and counter arguments would be very welcome. I am not insistent on my view, but rather eager to learn and alter them as necessary.

I must also add, that I find the idea of stealing someone else's wealth and resources, and causing multitude of deaths and destruciotn to acheive that basically abominable.

As it is mentioned in "Gone with the Wind" there is always money to be made when civilizations are getting destroyed. Both the Brits as well as D-company have taken advantage of specific civilizational crises in India - as ordinary vicious criminal enterprises - nothing more.

Very well said: UK exploited a civilizational crisis. Very well said.

[Sachin]

Very well said: UK exploited a civilizational crisis. Very well said.

A question from my side to add onto this. The initial set of people who landed up in India (various kingdoms), were they really doing it as part of an adventure or for the sheer neccessity? From what I could make out was that things were not all hunky-dory in these countries. The weather, the rich-poor divide all was unfavourable to many a person living in Europe at that time. And did this force many of the people to take a plunge and decide to move to India, hoping to make a better living?

Also the tradition of making very detailed notes (or rather record keeping) on every thing, is it a specific UK trait or was it applicable for people from say the Netherlands and France as well? For example William Logan (a Scot, was Dt. Collector Malabar, Madras Presidency) penned down a Malabar Manual which is now like a "Definitive Guide to Malabar". And Mr. Logan had actually travelled across his district (which is now split into 3-5 districts) and noted down the details.

Could IA get the local dukes, generals to sell out their nation to India?

Were'nt there cases in which various dukes etc. had plotted to throw out the ruling monarch? This would be when the current dynasty at Buckingham Palace was not in total control of the area. And is it that after the current dynasty/monarchy got absolute control that UK became more like a single entity and the dukes and generals became loyal to the queen and the country? Also England also had most harsh punishments especially for selling out the nation or trying to mess with the rulers. Would that also have an effect when people think twice before becoming traitors?

[brihaspati]

surinder wrote

The Britain of 1700 or 1800's was a Britiain that already had a functioning democracy for many years. Continous elections, a parliament, a system where people participate in the govt, and change it without the usual convulsions we see in most fo the world, including India. They have a taxation system, justice system, judiciary, national army, accountability, national debate, press, above all national cohesiveness.

Surinder the picture may not be that simple. The first big advantage they had was the total land area to be controlled was relatively small compared to India. Even over that, remember that this area was not politically united even formally until the accession of James I. The previous two hundred years - 1500-1700 wre years when they hammered out one single ideology through violent civil war and immense state repression. This ideological struggle was actually a search for a separate national identity from that of European mainland cloaked in the garb of religious rhetoric.

In India we did not have the time [also the scale would have had to be vast - but note that as imilar process had started under Shivaji and the Sikh gurus]. Problem was the sheer scale of operations in land and peoples - that would have needed much longer a time.

Regarding democracy and parliament and judiciary etc - that is probably a myth. The reality was much darker as I have hinted at in my ealier post. Look up "corruption in British judiciary" in the period you mention - there are pretty sepcatcular cases. As for parliamentary democracy - remember that in this period it was not universal suffrage. Just as in India under the Brits, there were pretty strong conditions on eleigibility that weeded out the major portion of the commons from voting. As for taxation system, it was still quite arbitrary on the commons - and the parliamentary fight over monarchy was essentially a degree of trying to bargain and reserve privilege for the elite gentry [middle and upper] against the arbitrary exploitation by the system. So it was all about ensuring privileges for a small but growing upper middle class entrepreneurs. This fight did not turn to the liberalism you mention until the first half of 19th century.

Throughout this century you refer to there were periodic attempts at regionalism, religious fractures, press freedom was routinely curtailed and censored, debates scuttled.

The main factor that changed their overall position was their venturing out to extract and exploit resources from the world - out of specific maritime realities and maritime struggles with the then dominant European powers - Spain, France and Portugal.

This I dont think has anything to do with all the supposed "liberal" factors you mention. It was the trainagular Atlantic slave trade that fueled the iron-works [as well as iron being available where copper was scarce leading to iron cannons] and the industrial revolution. This was enhanced by gradual increasing interest in India. The exact century you mention is also the period when huge capital was extracted and looted and shipped from India. Only in the backdrop of that, and copying and pilfering of technology from India, would all the "liberalism" make sense. Apply the current Marxist wisdom of lessening of social conflict and increase in "welfare" follows from social "prosperity" and investments!

I pose the reverse of what you suggest - that the "liberal" factors you mention of the early phase of capitalist transition to an apparently more equitable society is actually the result of infusion of huge ammounts of capital and technology stolen or looted from other societies, through slave trade and direct conquest of already more sophisticated economies [the Sapniards and the Portuguese failed to do this].

If I may do a though experiment, let us imagine India taking over UK. Let us say we win East Anglia first, would the East Anglians enroll in Indian Army to defeat the Welsh or Scots or London? If an Indian General had ordered Welsh troops in IA to shoot at unarmed people, would they do it? Would the British join the IA to be the coercive arm of the IA to subjugate UK? Could IA get the local dukes, generals to sell out their nation to India? Again, it is a thought experiment, and your conclusions might vary.

The Brits would surrender and their trading/opportunist instincts will triumph if they see no way out. However as long as ther is promise of support from equal "powers" the elite would try to hold on to their independent power.

Having said this, again, there are complications. My hypothesis is crude and simple and a generalization. The European mind is incapable of non-linear thought or finds "parallel-processing" of many different alternatives - "complexity" difficult. Hence their drive for "simplifying/modelling" of real complex phenomena - something that has given them an early mechanistic/technological edge in th early modern period. But this is also a factor in their adoption of rule-based/book-based/structured beliefs/theologies and ideologies. This has led to their adoption of the Imperialist versions of the "revealed traditions" and I do not think they will have a huge problem in switching over to some version of Islam if it becomes "opportune".

But where it is relevant for this discussion is that, this incapability of dealing with complexity has led to the creation of and adherence to "white colour based identity" - since visual identification is perhaps the least taxing on an otherwise dim intellect. This is where, Indian occupation may find some difficulty and the elite be able to rally some resistance.

The dukes/generals of the Brits have long been used to swift vengeance from the "authorities" that could also affect their families and dependants - for a long long time. Typically such vengeance could be carried out in the absence of foreign intervention. That may change if the basic structure of British power is shaken and weakened.

[Sanku]

Actually Bji and Surinder -- We Indians are obsessed with "How could this happen" type of discussions w.r.t. to holocaust in 1000-1300 period as well as the British entry into India.

At the core of this confusion is our Dharmic world view -- "Satyamev Jayate" and the concept of "Karma" in which good deeds are rewarded.

We see what in our world view would be "pure evil" or "Rakshasi Pravurti" win and hold the land for a long period of time.

We have not been able to reconcile it. Thus we have the Indian elite turning DIE, the escapism into "its Kaliyug" for more Indically oriented and towards a materialistic "here and now" type of mercantile approaches.

I have not been able to resolve it in my mind either, but I have given up trying to resolve the issues. I now only know that I have a value system which is instinctively Indic and I value that, not because its most successful but because thats the only one I can personally live with, if it has to be "Nishkam Karma" so be it.

[brihaspati]

Sachin wrote
A question from my side to add onto this. The initial set of people who landed up in India (various kingdoms), were they really doing it as part of an adventure or for the sheer neccessity? From what I could make out was that things were not all hunky-dory in these countries. The weather, the rich-poor divide all was unfavourable to many a person living in Europe at that time. And did this force many of the people to take a plunge and decide to move to India, hoping to make a better living?

Oh, definitely - a lot of them were here to make fortunes away from a society which had glass ceilings to advancement everywhere. We can perhaps compare it to the Californian Gold Rushes. All the motivations, criminalities, changes in character, as well as character shaping changes - essentially a greed based, survival and betterment instinct. Some changed in contact - [like some "whites" who went native both in America as well as in India], but most retained their initial criminal instincts or character-flaws and shorcomings that their reiligion, church, and regional biases had trained in them. I will post later an interesting incident regarding some sleazebags from fair Albion with regard to the infamous Nawab of the Carnatic.

Also the tradition of making very detailed notes (or rather record keeping) on every thing, is it a specific UK trait or was it applicable for people from say the Netherlands and France as well? For example William Logan (a Scot, was Dt. Collector Malabar, Madras Presidency) penned down a Malabar Manual which is now like a "Definitive Guide to Malabar". And Mr. Logan had actually travelled across his district (which is now split into 3-5 districts) and noted down the details.

This is probably a legacy of the neo-classical educational system that trained the "public-careerists". They were compulsorily brought up on a diet of the European classical literature and that left an impression on the style of the Roman and Greek ramblings in prose. The historical narratives would be models - and all the writinsg of Pliny Junior, or Caesar's Gaullic campaigns, Suetonius...would be in the same meticulous, detailed, long observation style. The neo-imperialist Britian also identified a lot with Roman Empire and I amsure many of those "writing" from India had this subconscious or conscious attempt at thinking of themselves in the footsteps of Caesar!

Were'nt there cases in which various dukes etc. had plotted to throw out the ruling monarch? This would be when the current dynasty at Buckingham Palace was not in total control of the area. And is it that after the current dynasty/monarchy got absolute control that UK became more like a single entity and the dukes and generals became loyal to the queen and the country? Also England also had most harsh punishments especially for selling out the nation or trying to mess with the rulers. Would that also have an effect when people think twice before becoming traitors?

Yes plenty - and even the gerat Lover Duke is now shown to be a not-so-closet Nazi sympathizer and at one point Churchill had thought of bringing him to UK and have hime tried for treason.

[Hari Seldon]

Wow. very interesting discussion indeed. Thanks to all for taking the time and trouble.

[brihaspati]

Sanku wrote
Actually Bji and Surinder -- We Indians are obsessed with "How could this happen" type of discussions w.r.t. to holocaust in 1000-1300 period as well as the British entry into India.
At the core of this confusion is our Dharmic world view -- "Satyamev Jayate" and the concept of "Karma" in which good deeds are rewarded.
We see what in our world view would be "pure evil" or "Rakshasi Pravurti" win and hold the land for a long period of time.
We have not been able to reconcile it. Thus we have the Indian elite turning DIE, the escapism into "its Kaliyug" for more Indically oriented and towards a materialistic "here and now" type of mercantile approaches.
I have not been able to resolve it in my mind either, but I have given up trying to resolve the issues. I now only know that I have a value system which is instinctively Indic and I value that, not because its most successful but because thats the only one I can personally live with, if it has to be "Nishkam Karma" so be it.

Sanku ji, answering you will go OT perhaps. But within the context of your question and this thread, I think you can reconcile your expectations from the "karma" theory even if you do not subscribe to my proposal of qualifying the type of "karma" that is redeemable across multiple lifetimes or historical periods [within GDF].

We had not completed the task of hammering out one common ideology as the foundation of the national identity, if needed by coercion, as shown by the Brits. The Brits unfied territories by military force, ruthlessly cleared out any ideological fragment that had any affiliation of identity with foreign powers - though violent means. This was how they virtually liquidated the Catholic infrastructure because it was affiliated to its arch enemies - in mainland Europe.

Would you consider the possibility that, within the framework of "reward-punishment" concept of "karma", that Indians had to suffer the Brits because they had not carried out this "correct" - very British policy - within the confines of the subcontinent in the millenium before? I do not think exactly in this logic - but can this not be a logical rgument given the assumptions of traditional "karma" theory?

[Sanku]

I dont know Bji, I can use it to understand holocaust II, but not holocaust I, I do agree with multi-cylce karmic debt, but nothing I can think of can persuade my inner being that India deserved the savagery that it has suffered.

We are good people, we were good people.

[shiv]

Also the tradition of making very detailed notes (or rather record keeping) on every thing, is it a specific UK trait or was it applicable for people from say the Netherlands and France as well? For example William Logan (a Scot, was Dt. Collector Malabar, Madras Presidency) penned down a Malabar Manual which is now like a "Definitive Guide to Malabar". And Mr. Logan had actually travelled across his district (which is now split into 3-5 districts) and noted down the details.

Sachin the brits came to India at a time when there was great expansion of their own knowledge. Detailed observation and copious record keeping was intrinsic to the expansion the the knowledge base upon which European science, technology and their economies depended. There was a great beating down of assumptions of the sciences that were left over from an earlier era - some as old as Aristotle and Socrates. There was intense study and recording of minutae in every field of science starting from chemistry, biology, astronomy, cartography, archaeology, anatomy, physiology, metallurgy, psychology, art, literature, philosophy - you name it it was being studied and observations recorded. And those observations were being shared in journals. Britain was a very developed society even in the 1800s. One just has to read the biographies of people like Darwin or the people who mapped India in the geological survey and you get to see that these blokes were leading to a new explosion of knowledge in a manner that might have been seen in India 2000 years earlier, and in Arabia 1200 years earlier.

Every one of these sciences and scientific records aided them in their dominance. Chemistry was used in the making of dyes for clothes and explosives. Metallurgy in building, shipbuilding, railways and weapons. Cartography and astronomy in accurate mapping, anatomy and physiology led to the development of previously unimaginable medical techniques, (even as that which was known in India was already dying out or had died out centuries earlier), Archeology, Paeleonotology and Sociology and Philosophy aided the rewriting of the worldview showing Europe, particularly Britain as the center of gravity of the world. We are talking of a continent with nations that dominated the world in the 18th and 19th centuries the way the US dominated the 20th century. You have to look at India as a civilization that had reached its nadir - having peaked more than a millennium earlier.

Fortunately the nadir is now past, but only just. There is more work to be done than can be done in one lifetime.

[svinayak]

Also the tradition of making very detailed notes (or rather record keeping) on every thing, is it a specific UK trait or was it applicable for people from say the Netherlands and France as well? For example William Logan (a Scot, was Dt. Collector Malabar, Madras Presidency) penned down a Malabar Manual which is now like a "Definitive Guide to Malabar". And Mr. Logan had actually travelled across his district (which is now split into 3-5 districts) and noted down the details.

Intellectual revoultion in the west started after the reformation period.
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/intellect.html

This period from 1500-1700 was also the age of exploration by the west for not only goods but also knowledge and philosophy.
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture4a.html

Renaissance men and women turned their gaze backward in historical time. Not to their immediate past which they arrogantly assumed was "dark," but to the classical past of ancient Greece and Rome, which they assumed was bathed in light. There they found a Golden Age. There they found thinkers who had similar interests and who had wrestled perhaps, with identical problems. There they found their "renaissance," as GIORGIO VASARI (1511-1574)would put it. The medieval synthesis had grown formal, too compartmentalized, too confining. It was too damn logical. Too systematic. Too Aristotelian. And the Renaissance reacted strongly against the medieval matrix -- against all that pigeon-holing.

By 1500 and in whatever field of endeavor we choose to examine -- art, politics, science, economics, life -- there is greater emphasis placed on human potentiality for growth and excellence. The new world view -- at least part of it -- would be fashioned according to the reigning two ideals of the period: individuality and self-sufficiency.

The Renaissance was clearly marked by vast economic changes. Although Europe was slow to recover from the ravages of the Black Death between 1347 and 1351, by the middle of the fifteenth century, finance, commerce, agriculture and industry were all on the upswing. Commerce demanded a money economy in place of the older barter system. And the restrictive practices of the guild system, at least in western Europe, were already showing signs of breakdown. All of this, of course, would be supported by the massive influx of gold and silver bullion into Europe which the eventual exploitation of the world across the Atlantic would make possible in the early 16th century. Kings and their nobility, of course, grew wealthier. But on a comparative level, it was the city-dwelling merchant whose wealth grew even more. Italy, Germany, the Low Countries and in England were the main beneficiaries of the wealth that flowed into Europe during the first wave of overseas empire. Bankers financed mines, manufacturing and sheep-raising and the great merchants began to move beyond the confines of the medieval guild system. Commerce sought new markets in North and South America and India.

Trade began to show signs of change. Trade in luxuries began to give way to trade in staple commodities. In the face of this economic reality, the old city guilds and all the regulations and restrictions attached to them were beginning to prove inadequate. The new urban leaders were the middle classes, the bourgeoisie, and not the bishops. The Church's role as temporal arbiter was challenged. Merchants needed firm and stable governments free from older feudal obligations so it is no accident that it was during the Renaissance that strong, centralized monarchies make their appearance. And this accounts for the political theory of NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI (1469-1527).

[brihaspati]

Going into very deep details about the "explosion" of British knowledge - between 1700-1800, or even the explosion in Renaissance - should be taken up by BRFites interested in this. Perhaps OT here, but my studies show a great deal of stealing, copying, and rote learning - and I do not see any explosion. There were individual "brilliant" minds no doubt, but these were minds being coopted in and also benefiting from and participating in the "great" colonizing enterprise. But as a system and society, there was an overwhelming amount of opposition to these "great" and brilliant "minds". Since Darwin has been mentioned, people can look up why Darwin did not publish his work for a long long time, and why he ultimately did, and the wonderful resposnse from this explosive knowledge society he received - and the effect it had even on his personal marutal life. Why some of Newton's manuscripts were discovered only "posthumously". The treatment that a certain watch-maker and clock-maker had at the hands of men of science of England.

Should individual brilliance characterize the entire society or the then intellectual society? Depends on opinion perhaps. A lot of knowledge fell into the hands of the Europeans when Moorish Spain fell to Ferdinand and Isabella. As with the Islamics, who carefully avoided acknowledging Indian sources, (with perhaps only one exception) the Christains of Europe similarly failed to acknowledge the debt of copier of copiers. The Moorish Spain had collected a treasure trove in classical European and ME Arabic or Persian works ultimately sourced from India. If there was any explosion - we find this explosion only from this point onwards.

Show me tremendous explosion before the fall of the last Moorish stronghold in Spain and the fall of John in Byzantium to the Ottomans - which also pushed Byzantine [eastern!] collections into Europe - in late 1400's. Please do!

It was not knowledge which fostered power and imperilist success, but power and colonies and imperialist success that fostered "knowledge".

[svinayak]

Owing to a hectic schedule just managed a cursory glance at the topic being discussed currently on this thread but must admit find it very interesting....

One quick point:

Don't have any references to give, at present, on this assertion but have heard a lot of elders (passed by word of mouth from generation to generation?) saying that India's knowledge in science, astronomy, mathematics, medicine etc. was taken by the Arabs and from there it gradually found its way to Europe....it was this Indian knowledge that may have contributed a great deal to European Renaissance.

Other forums are already discussing this
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... maticians/

[shiv]

Owing to a hectic schedule just managed a cursory glance at the topic being discussed currently on this thread but must admit find it very interesting....

One quick point:

Don't have any references to give, at present, on this assertion but have heard a lot of elders (passed by word of mouth from generation to generation?) saying that India's knowledge in science, astronomy, mathematics, medicine etc. was taken by the Arabs and from there it gradually found its way to Europe....it was this Indian knowledge that may have contributed a great deal to European Renaissance.

I don't think this is really doubted. There are an increasing number of references to this. Even "Aesop's fables" are the Panchatantra onlee. But what Arabs did do was to translate Indian works into Arabic and that was later taken to be "Arabic" work. That then went to Europe with names like Al Jabr (Algebra) and Al Khwarizm (algorithm).

It also goes to show that an attitude of "We had it all before" may be good for grabbing a few straws of self esteem, but no good for world domination. All the world dominators in the last 1000 years have borrowed or stolen earlier knowledge.

The Arabs translated from Indian languages to Arabic. These works were translated to Latin and later English, German, French, Italian and Spanish. Translation of existing knowledge into a language that one's own people can understand is part of the process used by powerful civilizations. It is as important as having the knowledge in the first place. Arab scholars actually took time off to translate (like Pakis painstakingly paint their mijiles) and European scholars did the same thing. The painstaking record keeping that Sachin asked about was necessary for accurate collection and dissemination of knowledge, even if the knowledge was pre-existing. After all if "Hindu knowledge" was accurate and copious - even the translations to Arabic or other languages had to be accurate and copious to ensure that rubbish was not passed on. So copying and rote are part and parcel of dissemination of knowledge.

[arnab]

So copying and rote are part and parcel of dissemination of knowledge.

Unlike the Indic proclivity of 'what happens in vedas, stays in vedas'

[Pranav]

Fortunately the nadir is now past, but only just. There is more work to be done than can be done in one lifetime.

It would be wrong to take for granted that the nadir is past. India has not achieved the same level of independence as China.

[derkonig]

AoA
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 847269.cms

How sekoolaar/dhimmi are the Lib Dems? I have no clue about them but seems like the Lib Dems leader doesn't seem very excited about retaining nukes while even the multi-culti Labour seem to be pro-nukes, upgrade of deterrent/mijjiles, etc.

[rohiths]

AoA
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 847269.cms

How sekoolaar/dhimmi are the Lib Dems? I have no clue about them but seems like the Lib Dems leader doesn't seem very excited about retaining nukes while even the multi-culti Labour seem to be pro-nukes, upgrade of deterrent/mijjiles, etc.

They are liberal democrats. If they are not sekoolar who can be ??
Just read their manifesto on
http://www.libdems.org.uk/ethnic_minorities.aspx

We will ensure that our laws reflect that diversity, protecting minorities from violence, discrimination and harassment and allowing everyone the freedom to live their lives. Labour can no longer lay exclusive claim to the votes of Britain’s ethnic minorities. The Liberal Democrats are the leading proponents of policies which call for tolerance and respect for human rights, both at home and abroad.

I sincerely hope that they will come to power and give vijjas to 100000000000 bakis and give up nukes and mijjiles

[derkonig]

^^^^^
AoA,
@UKstan based BRFites, bliss to vote for Lib Dems; Londonistan needs more sekoolaarism. Now.

[brihaspati]

The first ins sequence of posts I want to put up about the myths of "judicial incorruptibility/legal reforms", and sundry other liberal, modernizing and path-breaking ethical/technological/social superiority measures that the British are supposed to have achieved BEFORE they colonized India :especially the period from 1700-1800.

From Judicial Corruption in Early Modern England by Wilfrid Prest, Past & Present, No. 133 (Nov., 1991), pp. 67-95, Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society.

the early eighteenth-century reformation of judicial manners was far from complete. This was, as David Lemmings emphasizes, "the age of Danby and Walpole, not that of Peel and Gladstone"; even the most eminent jurists "dispensed personal favours with a facility which demonstrates the general recognition of patronage as an accepted feature of the profession, rather than a species of corruption".63J udges continued to be solicited by peers seeking (if not necessarily receiving) advice and preferential treatmenti n their privatea ffairs.64J udicials alariesf requentlyr an up to three terms in arrears.65J udges still drew much of their incomes in fees paid by litigants, "the very taking whereof looks like selling justice", according to an attorney pamphleteer in a tract first published in 1706 and reprinted in 1707, 1724, 1725 and 1730. The author urged that all judges should receive a salary of at least £3,000 (double their base rate of pay after 1714). Such a "reformation would raise the esteem of the judges, and would make them indifferent, impartial and quick of dispatch", besidesencouraging the best practitioners at the bar to accept a place on the bench:

And what a great injury it is to the public to prefer a man of mean parts to a place of judicature I leave any to judge, who has ever observed the actions of those men, especially upon their circuits: it's there they do the most mischief, where they are left to themselves; in Westminster Hall ...they are kept steady by their learned companions.66

Such "mean puisne judges" could also still do damage in chambers, however, according to the young law student who noted in 1715 that some judges "encourage the bringing cases to a hearing before them at their chambers, by which very considerable fees come to their clerks, but which they are accountable to the judges themselves for by agreement", and (according to his practitioner informant) "sometimes in favour to an attorney that is wont to bring matters before them go beyond their bounds".67 Thus it is not altogether surprising that suspicions concerning judicial integrity continued to be voiced well into the eighteenth century. A reformist tract of 1737 depicts various legal figures haled before King Minos in the underworld. Minos demands of a judge, "Did you never take, or allow to be taken by any belonging to you any bribe, gratuity or reward? ... Did you never go snacks with any of your clerks in their exceedings?".68 The following year a barrister was represented advising his client in doggerel verse and the following - highly improper - terms:

At Quarter Sessions first indict
And see if that will set you right:
If not remove it to th'Assises
And have it tried at Hizi Prizes [sic]:
There back and edge I'll be your friend
And pack the jury to that end
Nay, what is more, to make it clear
I'll whisper's L- ship in the Ear

Sir Francis Page, a baron of the Exchequer, was questioned before the House of Commons in 1722 on charges of electoral corruption, while Lord Chancellor Macclesfield was impeached and convicted in 1725 for selling mastershipsi n Chancery.

From the early 1760s the Wilkites attacked the role of judges in the prosecution of politically sensitive cases, claiming that "there is too great a vicinity between Westminster Hall and St James's ... their correspondence is too close and intimate".88 As ministerial dependants the judges were said to encroach upon the constitutional rights of juries, seeking additional power for themselves and their political masters.89 Such themes echoed propositions advanced nearly a century before by Henry Care, whose polemical catalogueo f EnglishL iberties,f irst published at the height of the Exclusion Crisis and frequently reissued thereafter, asserted that judges, made "by prerogative", were often men who would "serve a present turn, not always those of most intregrity and skill". Having been formerly accustomed to take fees, some might well be tempted to continue:

they are concerned in so many causes that they are oftner subject to be tempted, and are so few that they may be the easier corrupted. They cannot be challenged, and may be apt to think themselves above any action, and thence be encouraged to strain a point now and then. The major part of their agreeing, is enough; they are never sworn at each particular trial, nor ever at all but once, and that exceedingly generally.90

Care and other Whiggish, pro-jury, anti-judge pamphleteers of the 1680s in their turn drew upon Leveller writings, where judges are commonly represented as both covetous monopolists and "creatures" of the arbitrary ruling powers, views which themselves represent an extension of the Long Parliament's case against judicial support for the crown in the ship-money case.91

...between the late fifteenth and mid-eighteenth centuries the primary focus of concern about judicial corruption gradually moved from the misdeeds of individual judges to the collective partiality of the bench as a whole. The Act of Settlement may have effectively given the judiciary independence vis-d-vis the monarch, but not from the ministry of the day. "It is in vain that the salaries of the judges are raised, if their ambition and avarice are inflamed by ministerial bribes, or promises from the Crown", protested an opposition M.P. in 1770.92 By this time, as Richard Pares noted, "the modern conventions were already established, whereby the law offices and the chief seats on the bench are conferred in return for services rendered, or to be rendered, in parliamentary debate".93

Actually this decrease of judicial corruption proceeds more towards the latter half of the 18th century - exactly in the 50 years following colonization of India and shipping of massive amounts of capital and unequal trade transfer of Bengal revenues to England. Even in the above article, the author indicates the role of increasing salaraies and share in the prosperity of the economy that was conferred upon the judges by the state. In the late 17th centiry andearly 18th corruption was endemic - and it coincides with the period when British colonialism was yet to take off in yielding massive looting of overseas capital.

[Gerard]

Britain-India War games over Maoist belt

[NRao]

BNP call for end to immigration from Muslim nations

The British National Party (BNP) are calling for an end to immigration from Muslim nations, saying this presents a "deadly threat" to the UK.

[Haresh]

The rise of the Bollygarchs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... archs.html

[svinayak]

The rise of the Bollygarchs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... archs.html

Just as Britain enjoys a love affair with India, it is pleasing to know that they can feel warmly about us. "I remember talking to one Indian multi millionaire," says Philip Beresford, compiler of the Rich List, "who said that the British should never have left."

They like Britain's public schools, our legal system and lack of corruption. At home, these spectacularly successful businessmen are celebrities; just like Bollywood stars. In the UK, they can relax - even the very rich are generally safe from kidnap, and while we might not have thought much of our climate recently, the British weather is considerably more temperate than that of Mumbai.
History is also a "great force", according to the Indian marketing guru Suhel Seth. "Remember that the beauty about an Indian," says this irrepressive phrasemaker, "is that he always wants to demonstrate to the folk back home that he has arrived. He wants to be more British than the British, but also to prove to his erstwhile colonial master that he can cock a snook at them."

[Gerard]

Foreign Office apologises for Pope 'condom' memo

The Foreign Office has apologised for a "foolish" document which suggested the Pope's UK visit could be marked by the launch of "Benedict brand" condoms.
...
the paper suggested the Pope be invited to open an abortion clinic and bless a gay marriage during September's visit.

[krisna]

Foreign Office apologises for Pope 'condom' memo

The Foreign Office has apologised for a "foolish" document which suggested the Pope's UK visit could be marked by the launch of "Benedict brand" condoms.
...
the paper suggested the Pope be invited to open an abortion clinic and bless a gay marriage during September's visit.

Wonderful sense of humour- brit style. have to give an award for it.

Apart from an editorial? from chindu I am not aware of news about tumultous events in church in DDM.

[JE Menon]

Ah, the curious phenomenon of the dog that did not bark...

[JE Menon]

Acharya,

One thing yindoos are good at is telling people what they want to hear... and these guys who have scratched and bitten their way to get or stay where they are, are masters of this art.

Of course, there are people who feel this way. But they will do no more about it than buy more assets in the UK . Not sure that's a bad thing, especially if the Brits feel about it as Clive Aslet apparently seems to.

[D Roy]

I mean, isn't that article 30 years too late.

I mean c'mon its made up of a set of wannabe cliches mirrored by both subject and predicate...

India has moved on even if a few "with it" "bijinessmen" haven't. Yeah I know the middle class dreeeam and phoren an aaal that ... ( but then what do you expect with all the jaaaint/semi-jaaint/ i still visit my brother two times a year kind of Phaamily system.


and take a look at this:

"Remember that the beauty about an Indian," says this irrepressive phrasemaker, "is that he always wants to demonstrate to the folk back home that he has arrived. He wants to be more British than the British, but also to prove to his erstwhile colonial master that he can cock a snook at them."

Not everyone Pal. Not everybody.

Frankly speaking that article and all that it represents is YUK ( The New maaaaah rajahs, oof!). So help me God.